|
If 99% or more of the leading experts in a field say that something is true, it almost certainly is.
Agreed, which is why I ask my biologist about evolution and my rabbi about God, lol.
I think something that atheists need to acknowledge is the religion has EVOLVED multiple times in almost every culture in the world. (arguably atheism is just the latest step in that evolution).
Religion is there because its beneficial, until you account for why it was useful in the past you shouldn't be too quick to try to remove it from the present.
|
I really don't understand how this proves evolution at all? Your text confused me, is it the fact we have the laryngeal nerve that you use as a proof ? Or is is the way we are formed ? Also you talk about how we are all formed has fish, when is that ? Very unclear text imo that doesn't prove anything the way it is explained(maybe I messed something?).
By the way I believe in evolution.
EDIT :
On June 19 2010 23:01 gyth wrote:
I think something that atheists need to acknowledge is the religion has EVOLVED multiple times in almost every culture in the world. (arguably atheism is just the latest step in that evolution).
Religion is there because its beneficial, until you account for why it was useful in the past you shouldn't be too quick to try to remove it from the present.
There are 2 types of atheism, one is a religion, it is believing there is nothing else than nature.
The second type is just not believing in anything, which is my case, this is not part of a religion, we are just waiting to be enlighten and not taking anything seriously when no one knows if it exists or not.
|
Theory in scientific term does not have the same meaning as hypothesis. Stop saying that its just a theory. Scientific theory in short means a model of how something works supported by tests, observations, and empirical evidence.
|
Poor design proves there wasn't a designer.
(or he's maliciously deceptive)
There isn't much room to challenge evolution on the post-cellular front, but there is still a vacuum on the pre-cellular side.
But really any time you have a theory that directly relies on "random" events you leave yourself wide open for speculations of maybe its not so random (i.e. God did it)
When you're talking about numbers on the order of 10^400 against, God just doesn't seem that far fetched.
Or "My belief in statistics is stronger than my disbelief in God".
The second type is just not believing in anything
I thought that was nihilism.
P.S. the dude abides
|
On June 20 2010 02:51 gyth wrote:Poor design proves there wasn't a designer. (or he's maliciously deceptive) There isn't much room to challenge evolution on the post-cellular front, but there is still a vacuum on the pre-cellular side. But really any time you have a theory that directly relies on "random" events you leave yourself wide open for speculations of maybe its not so random (i.e. God did it) When you're talking about numbers on the order of 10^400 against, God just doesn't seem that far fetched. Or "My belief in statistics is stronger than my disbelief in God". I thought that was nihilism. P.S. the dude abides
You may be right I don't really know the term attributed to not doing anything.
|
On June 19 2010 04:31 In)Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2010 00:07 Wohmfg wrote:On June 19 2010 00:03 In)Spire wrote:On June 18 2010 22:24 Butigroove wrote:On June 18 2010 22:20 In)Spire wrote:On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote:
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science. Just sayin'. On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote:
Thats a good read.
I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example:
Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers.
A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers.
The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events.
This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same. The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself. Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin' I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory? But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
So basically your reason for not believing in evolution is because it is too much of an amazing process to believe in? I feel the exact same way as you, except instead of disbelief I feel astonishment. A whole lot more astonishment than I would feel if I had just said to myself that everything here exists because of a creator. The latter is just such an empty, boring and overused way to explain the universe and it barely answers anything.
It's irritating to think of how many people just never get to see the beauty and preciousness of the process of life. Maybe if they did there wouldn't be so many global problems.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 19 2010 04:31 In)Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2010 00:07 Wohmfg wrote:On June 19 2010 00:03 In)Spire wrote:On June 18 2010 22:24 Butigroove wrote:On June 18 2010 22:20 In)Spire wrote:On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote:
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science. Just sayin'. On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote:
Thats a good read.
I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example:
Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers.
A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers.
The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events.
This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same. The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself. Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin' I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory? Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
My apologies for all the assholes in this thread. If you do come back to read this, it's because of the circumstances they were put into. With different levels of heat, pressures, chemical balances, etc. some variations were more successful than others. That's the basic idea of why natural selection works at all. Then think about it across the span of the globe, with extremely different environments everywhere, and over billions of years.
I suggest you read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin if you'd like more specifics on some of the bridges between simpler animals like fishes and complex animals like humans.
|
it's fascinating how people talk about evolution as something to believe or not believe in.
it's like saying "i don't believe in math" or "i don't believe in gravity".
just because a few thousand years ago someone tried to explain the existance of life by claiming that everything was created in a matter of days, doesn't mean that there is any thruth to it.
if the star wars story would have existed back then, maybe we would have millions believing in the force today.
the only difference is that the bible was written to carry a moral message and not for entertainment, it still is mostly fictional.
|
In)Spire, admittedly you do not deserve to be belittled just by being a Christian, and you seem like a decent person so I'll present this in a very fair manner - no heckling or snide remarks or anything like that.
If you look past the insults and remarks, some posters have proposed very straight-forward, logical assessments (either to you or in this thread) which you have either ignored, or replied with a fundmentally illogical answer. That's primarily the nature of any animosity in this thread towards you.
The thread started off as someone happily expressing something he's passionate about (hence why it's a blog) - I haven't reread the thread but to give you the benefit of the doubt, let's say there were people heckling Christianity unprovoked. The minute this turns into a religion vs science debate, is when someone advocates the opposing idea, namely you (and maybe 1 or 2 others in this thread). If you'll agree with me, I believe it's only fair that in a debate (once again, looking past the insults and animosity), with both parties obviously willing to argue about it, present their debate in the most effective, logical manner otherwise it just turns into a messy argument overall.
We (supporting evolution) have presented our side, sometimes sloppily, but our claims are backed by significant scientific basis (enough of which is posted in this very thread). Without any insults, without any condescension, "our" side just asks that you give us the fair treatment of doing the same for yourself. If you decide that your main argument is based largely in religion, you must also acknowledge that the burden of proof is on you whenever one makes fundamentally unsubstantiated claims. If I were a third party in this debate, arguing that I don't believe in evolution not because of the Christian God but rather the Tooth Fairy God, I would still have to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on me for my explanation to hold any logical basis. These are fair grounds.
On June 19 2010 04:31 In)Spire wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2010 00:07 Wohmfg wrote:On June 19 2010 00:03 In)Spire wrote:On June 18 2010 22:24 Butigroove wrote:On June 18 2010 22:20 In)Spire wrote:On June 18 2010 21:18 mOnion wrote:
just as a Christian I'd like to go ahead and say that not all of us are ignorant, crazy and unwilling to listen to science. Some of us believe evolution can be the answer to "how" and not "why"
just sayin
cute read I concur with this. Although personally I don't believe in evolution, I still love science and find it amazing sometimes and I'm pretty open minded about scientific matters. Fun read tho bruh Not believing in evolution is pretty much my definition of ignorant, crazy, and unwilling to listen to science. Just sayin'. On June 18 2010 22:21 Thats_The_Spirit wrote:
Thats a good read.
I believe that religion and evolution can go hand in hand.
Another simple way of looking at evolution is with the following example:
Imagine a population of butterflies with all sorts of different colors living in an area with a lot of different flowers.
A portion of the population migrates to another area where there are predominantly yellow flowers. The yellow butterflies can sit easily on the yellow flowers, while the blue, green and purple butterflies get eaten by birds, simply because the birds can spot them more easily among the yellow flowers.
The chances of getting offspring are far greater for the yellow butterflies. After a few decades 90% of the butterflies in this area are yellow.
This example is so obvious and straightforward that the most stubborn creationist can't deny this chain of events.
This is evolution. It's easy to grasp what can happen in 20 years, but its much harder for the human mind to try and grasp what can happen in 1 million years, even though the concept stays the same. The butterfly thing is an example of Natural Selection, a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself. Please don't make "ignorant" assumptions about me. I love science and how it has progressed, and I'm even amazed at the thing we are able to do in today's world. Just because I don't believe in evolution doesn't mean I'm some "crazy, ignorant" guy and "unwilling to listen to science." Just sayin' I wouldn't go as far as to call you crazy, but I would say you were ignorant and unwilling to listen to science if you refute the theory of evolution. Which part of it doesn't sit right with you? What's your proposed theory? Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
"But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me" - here you are stating that you are ignorant of the mechanisms that comprise the theory of evolution (which is substantiated in statistics, physical records, etc.), while others have tried explain them to you. Instead of accepting these, you made a remark based on your faith and religion. As a whole, we are trying to explain to you that this approach is illogical.
I don't want to impose any one belief on you just as I don't want Christians to impose their belief onto me, but everything I have argued in this post is based in logic. Please try to look at this objectively as well - if after all is said and done, you still maintain your beliefs then I don't have anything else to say. But as of right now you have provided your "side" of the argument with nothing, which is why people are calling you "willingly ignorant", or why people generalize Christians as being "deluded".
Cheers 
|
On June 20 2010 02:51 gyth wrote:Poor design proves there wasn't a designer. (or he's maliciously deceptive) There isn't much room to challenge evolution on the post-cellular front, but there is still a vacuum on the pre-cellular side. But really any time you have a theory that directly relies on "random" events you leave yourself wide open for speculations of maybe its not so random (i.e. God did it) When you're talking about numbers on the order of 10^400 against, God just doesn't seem that far fetched. Or "My belief in statistics is stronger than my disbelief in God". I thought that was nihilism. P.S. the dude abides
Nihilism is the belief that there is no meaning.
Also, that dichotomy of atheism is hilariously wrong.
|
it's like saying "i don't believe in math" or "i don't believe in gravity".
Einstein's general relativity superseded Newton's universal gravitation.
And while they're both "gravity", using gravity as an example of static simplicity is pretty funny.
|
On June 19 2010 04:31 In)Spire wrote:Truthfully, the thing that just doesn't fit right with me is how one small organism came to transform into ALL living organisms today. ADAPTATION is TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. That is something I do NOT disagree with. But how it adapted into every single thing alive is beyond me. I obviously have a lot more objections, but this is generally what I'm picky about.
Hi Sorry for the delay in responding to this; been lazing beside a swimming pool in Spain for a week.
With regards to what you describe as your principle objection, I can sympathise. If you don't mind I'd like to break that 'how' question into two parts: "How" as in via what sequence or pattern of intermediate states, and "how" as in by what mechanisms was this pattern of diversification and adaptation facilitated.
I can't judge from the posts you've made so far which of these is causing you problems, but in my experience it's the first 'how' that causes the most confusion. I mean, you supposedly 'start' with a single cell, and you end up with millions of incredibly varied organisms comprised of billions of cells, together filling countless tightly interdependent ecological niches. On the face of it, that does sound pretty far-fetched. It's very easy to imagine ways in which it couldn't have happened, and consequently decide it didn't.
In particular, a lot of people have a hard time imagining a sensible series of steps bridging single- and multi-cellular organisms. The key here is to think in terms of aggregation followed by differentiation, and there are many species still around today to illustrate stages of that process.
I don't want to go rambling on without a better idea of what it is you don't 'get' about common descent or the theory of evolution, so I'll wait for a reply.
|
I think saying "I believe in evolution" sounds too nonsecular. Belief is a word best used for intangible things, evolution is too well studied and documented to be written off as belief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
